Tracking in School - Essay Example

Tracking in school Introduction The relationship between families and schools is important in influencing the success in academics. School curriculums in the country have a holistic design to help develop the learners effectively. However, the success of the curriculum relies on strategic structures that encourage inclusivism. Specific aspects of the American curriculum show a degree of disunity that affects the functionality of the system. Such structures as tracking encourage segregation of students thereby enhancing the development of the segregated social structure in the country. Tracking is a school system that separates students and places them in groups depending on their academic ability. The system encourages the creation of school systems that place learners in groups depending on their overall achievement. Such a system discourages the holistic development of students, affects the relationship between schools and families and encourages discrimination in the society as the discussion below portrays. Key among the arguments of the opponents of tracking is the fact that most of the low track classes tend to comprise of students from poor families. Social class struggles are fundamental factors that affect the quality of life for most students. The disparity between the middle class and the working class is always evident in the performance of the children both academically and in extracurricular activities. The school system in the United States has tendencies of discrimination and racism with the tracking system initiating and sustaining such mundane forms of discrimination. Most low track classes consist of children from poor families while upper track classes comprise of children from either the middle class or the wealthy members of the society. This implies that the family backgrounds of the learners influences the quality of their learning experience thus development (Goodlad, 1983). The history of the country has always discriminated against the blacks among other minority groups. This implies that a majority of the wealthy are whites while a majority of the working class are blacks among other minority groups. The skewed nature of the tracking system as discussed above thus sustains racism in the society. Most of the low track classes comprise of children from working class African American families while the children in upper track classes come from middle class and white families. Such is a skewed pattern this discourages the development of a homogeneous society even within the school system. Tracking offers school with a method of naturalizing segregation owing to a number of demographic factors in the society key among which is economic might. The system presents African American children as poor and stupid in class thus unable to perform well in academics while t presents the white children as wealthy and bright in class. This way, the system of schooling cultivates disenfranchised cultural values (Oakes & Guiton, 1995). The middle-class families raise their children different from the working class and poor parents do. The differences in this context often reflect itself in the composition of classes in school and the quality of education in schools. The push for industrial schooling influenced the development of tracking in schools. Tracking keeps a section of the community poorer while enhancing the ambitions and economic superiority of the others. The system, for example, relegates poor minority students to differentiated curriculums and vocational programs. The appointment of teachers into the classes is equally disproportionate (Rosenbaum, 1976). With the belief that students in low-track classes are poor, the system reserves the best experienced and trained teachers to the upper tracks. The resources of the middle class and the wealthy in a society contribute to the creation of an appropriate working environment for the teachers. As such, teachers assigned to upper track classes have the zeal and enthusiasm to deliver unlike the teachers of low-track classes who feel segregated and demoralized. The result of such a skewed system of education is a segregated society. Children from poor families remain trapped in their poverty while those from wealthy families do better in life (Oakes, 1985). The structure of tracking in education shows the important roles that families play in the development of their children. Children from working class and poor families grow up differently from children from the middle class. The difference arises from the amount of influence the parents have on the lives of their children. The wealthy and middle class often control every aspect of their children’s life. As explained earlier, such families can afford the best teachers and the best schools for their children (Lareau, 2002). Additionally, they can always afford the best recreational facilities for their children. As such, they help nature the talents of their children by taking them to sports clubs and purchasing the best sports equipment for their children. The working class and poor families, on the other hand, limit their provisions to the sustaining the natural growth of the children thereby ignoring the need to develop talents in their children. The school curricula often vary among the tracks in a school. Such is the depth of segregation of children in schools that discourages the development of a cohesive and homogeneous society. Curricula in low-track classes are often remedial in structure and do not encourage the participation of the learners in lowe track as is the case in upper track classes. The curricula in upper track classes show the interest of the middle-class parents to influence the development of their children. As explained earlier, middle-class families raise their children different from working class parents, the middle-class parents always influence the development of their children in every way. In their attempt to accomplish the natural growth of their children, working class, and poor parents often ignore such basic features of a child’s growth as leisure. Unlike the middle-class parents, working class parents do not analyze the nature of the curricula with the view to influencing the leisure of their children. This implies that they leave their children at the mercies of the understaffed and the resource-depleted curriculums. Tracking causes immense stigmatization of children in low-track classes. As explained earlier, the system of education does not favor children from poor families. The working class families lack some of the basic resources and may often depend on the standards set by the government. The middle class on the other hand show immense interest in nurturing their children. Such parents therefore always invest in the education and recreation of their children. The differences in the two types of families are evident and influence the development of the two sets of children who may often attend similar schools. Stigmatization in this context arises naturally. Students in low-track classes feel inferior. They follow inferior curriculums and lack such basic resources as motivated teachers. Upper track classes, on the other hand, have all the resources and follow holistic curriculums that encourage the wholesome development of the learners. This enhances stigmatization of such children given the fact that the system of education does not conceal the economic backgrounds of their families (Kozol, 2001). Conclusion In retrospect, tracking is a unique policy of curriculum development that confines the learners to their economic classes thereby making it difficult for the learners to achieve either equality or excellence. Tracking limits the abilities and development of children. The system confines the learners to their economic circles, fails to provide an opportunity for the children to express themselves and limits the development of personalities in the learners. Tracking develops an archaic system of education that discriminates learners based on their economic backgrounds. This denies the learners an opportunity to develop holistically. Lack of equality discourages the holistic development of the learners as some lack basic resources while others enjoy such in surplus. Instead of creating a cohesive society by teaching basic social and cultural values, tracking enhances the stigmatization of a group of learners, which in turn divides the society. References Goodlad, J. I. (1983). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kozol, J. (2001). Still separate, still unequal: America’s educational apartheid. Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and white families. American Sociological Review, Vol. 67, No. 5. Pp. 747-776. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Oakes, J.; Guiton, G. (1995). "Matchmaking: The dynamics of high school tracking decisions". American Education Research Journal 32 (1): 3–33. Rosenbaum, J. E. (1976). Making Inequality: The Hidden Curriculum of High School Tracking. New York: Wiley. Read More